Dcit v. Syncome Formulations (I) Ltd.[[1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAAND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.191 of 2013 DATE: 03.07.2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-II,Hyderabad. … Appellant And The Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Limited,Secunderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.191 of 2013 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal in relation to the assessment year 2002-03 is sought to bepreferred against the judgment and order, dated 15.02.2008, of the learnedIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, on the following suggestedquestions of law. “A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the deduction of unpaid interest on disputed royalty payable to the A.P. Forest Departmentin the face of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act? B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the interest payable onroyalty is not in the nature of a liability provided u/s. 43B of theIncome Tax Act? C) Whether the appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to benefit of deduction u/s. 80HHC of theIncome Tax Act in the context of computation of MinimumAlternate Tax u/s. 115JA/115JB of the Income Tax Act?” We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and we have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. It appears that the learned Tribunal has decided the matter relying on itsearlier order, dated 08.11.2004, in I.T.A.No.789/Hyd/200 and batch ofappeals for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98 in the assessee’s owncase. Similarly, another issue has been decided relying on the judgment ofthe Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in case of DCIT vs. Syncome Formulations (I) Ltd.[[1]] There is no averment in the grounds of appeal that the aforesaid two judgments have been upset or the same have been under appeal. Therefore,we do not want to unsettle the settled issue by interfering with the impugnedjudgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ Date: 03.07.2013ES ______________ G. ROHINI, J [1]292 ITR (AI) 144 (Mumbai)(SB)